Vlad,
I'm talking about Myers coining of the fallacy and how the general idea that an implausible story is not made any more plausible by embellishment(AKA your interpretation of the courtiers reply) was employed by myers in the context of theism and theology.
It's not just “my interpretation” but ok. What it actually employed though was a response to the same mistake you made (”your shitty knowledge” etc): someone accused RD of being insufficiently versed in the details of Biblical miracle stories to have valid view on their likely un/truthfulness. The point of the Courtier’s reply is that you can pile as much irrelevant detail as you like onto a daft story, but it’s still a daft story nonetheless.
The Courtiers reply enters the field of religious debate when Myers used it to defend Dawkins against a charge of ignorance of theological discussion and theism.
Yes, for the reason I just explained to you.
The trouble is it contained extremely bad analogies
For example?
As expected the flaws in the Myers Courtier's reply argument have been recycled in your use of it.
Then, finally, you should have no trouble telling us what these supposed flaws might be. Go for it…
Apart from the bad analogies that render the Myers Courtiers reply as inadequate…
Hang on – you just went from the unqualified assertion “the trouble is it contained extremely bad analogies” to “apart from the bad analogies”. I don’t suppose there’s any chance is there of you trying at least to demonstrate why in your opinion they
are bad analogies?
…and fallacious the appeal to the virtue of not knowing the details of an alleged fairy story ( God) itself appeals to knowing the details of a fairy story and that is fallacious.
Again, if you want to clam there to be a fallacy within the Courtier’s reply then you need to try at least to unscramble your word salad into a comprehensible sentence. What are you even trying to say here? (Oh, and try not to forget this time that the CR merely says that adding irrelevant detail to an implausible idea does not thereby make it a plausible one. You do remember that right?)
Lastly…
“Lastly”? Any chance of a firstly or a secondly before you overreach to a lastly?
…Myers and yourself confuse empirical unfalsifiability with logical impossibility and compound this fallacious activity with suggesting that the courtier (although there isn't anyone actually proposing a logical impossibility) is bidding people not only to consider it but also appreciate it.
You do know that repeating the same lies doesn’t make it less of a lie right, even when it’s phrased in incomprehensible terms? Yet again, the CR merely says that adding irrelevant detail to an implausible idea does not thereby make it a plausible one. Try to remember that before you fly off into gibberish next time.
That suggestion is also fallacious.
Then don’t make it, whatever it is. Certainly no-one else here has.
And of course there is no boy because nobody is, according to you, saying that God does not exist.
Well that’s new. You’ve taken incomprehensible word salad and then squared (or possibly cubed) it. I can only assume you have something in your head that you’re trying to express here only your inability to frame coherent sentences is stopping you, but I’m blowed if I know what it might be. Try wrapping a wet towel round your head, have a nice cup of tea and this time practice writing sentences that, if you were to be reading them, wouldn’t make you think there’s a dysfunctional eight-year-old with a poorly edited thesaurus on the other end of the line.
